camerapediafandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Main Page/Old
"Unknown" Category Should there be a "Misc" catch-all category or perhaps an "Unknown" category? For example, where would (or could) I place the Time-Life Magazine Toy Camera I own? I don't think Time-Life needs it's own manufacturer category because it was simply a re-branding but I'm still not sure who actually made this camera. --phule 15:13, 21 Jan 2005 (EST) : An "unknown" category makes sense to me. --Lbstone 04:11, 23 Jan 2005 (EST) Film Shouldn't there be a category for various film types? (i.e., B&W, C-41, infrared, silver types, etc.) : I say go for it. --Lbstone 19:30, 21 Jun 2005 (EDT) Camera makers Before people add each and every maker existing or having existed in the past so many years, and there is a bunch, maybe we should make subcategories: * Digital only makers, ie all the brands that are mainly electronic brands and make digital cameras, (ex. Apple, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba) * Today's analogical makers (ex. Konica-Minolta, Nikon, Canon), or ex-analogical which went all-digital for their cameras (ex. Kodak) * Analogical camera makers no longer in activity --rebollo_fr 23 Sep 2005 : My concern is that so many makers are both digital and analog, so it may be a little confusing. In any event, I don't believe the list is too overwhelming at this point. Maybe later on down the road we may have a greater need to group them, but right now I don't see it as a big deal. --Lbstone 13:35, 19 October 2005 (EDT) Well, there are two fewer analog camera makers; scratch Konica-Minolta as they are quitting all cameras completely and selling high end to Sony, and Nikon is ceasing film camera and most lens production for film cameras, just maintaining some accessories. What about a list of camera reviews? I personally have a hard time finding profs reviews in one site. I mean, I gotta go to different sites to check how my powershot a95 is rated! Maybe a list of sources in camerapedia could work? Camera Makers vs. Top Camera Brands I've been giving a lot of thought to the homepage and I think it's best to make a differentiation between camera makers and camera brands. The maker is the company that made the camera, but their name may not be widely associated with the actual brand of the camera. (Take Ihagee (Exakta) for example... I'm not sure that Ihagee needs to be on the homepage... and Exakta should be filed alphabetically under the letter "E".) Since the brand is how everyone knows the camera, I think the homepage should reflect the most well-known brands and display them alphabetically. This way the majority of people will more easily be able to find what they're looking for. We may even consider splitting the homepage into "Well Known Brands" and "Lesser Known Brands". Although, I'm not sure how we would make that determination. (And it may actually lead to some arguments.) I also think it would be helpful to link to some of the various categories from the homepage. From there we could link to the exhaustive list of Category:Camera makers, Category:Lens makers, etc. --Lbstone 16:44, 5 February 2006 (EST) : To separate the brands from the makers would not be without problems: Plaubel and Makina are both reasonably well-known (to the point that someone had created a Plaubel 67 page for the Makina 67), which one would we choose? I think today's way is good, the maker's name and the better known brand name between brackets. : I have made an attempt to put in bold the better known brands. : Maybe we could distinguish between the makers still in existence and the other, this should be objective enough. The lesser known brands are mostly lesser known because of their age. : More generally, the site has to address two kinds of demands: the normal user/buyer that buys modern up-to-date digital cameras and does not care too much about the lesser known models, and the user/collector, always happy to discover previously unknown makers and models. Of course both demands are legitimate. This difference will be reflected in the rest of the site: the discussions about the size and contents of the infobox template reflect this, as well as the choice of one page per variant versus one page per family. --Rebollo fr 05:30, 6 February 2006 (EST) :: You bring up very good points. I'll be giving this some more thought. --Lbstone 12:40, 6 February 2006 (EST) :: An additional thought to add... If I'm looking for a Horizon camera, I'm more likely going to hope to find it under the letter "H" rather than under "K" (for KMZ). It's likely that this will cause confusion for some people. --Lbstone 12:43, 6 February 2006 (EST) :::I think that if you're serious about making this into a useful repository of information—that is, an encyclopedia, and not just one guy's hobby site—then you probably want to consider this: there should be (at least) two lists, one of "Cameras by manufacturer", the other of "Cameras by model". Otherwise, as you point out, people looking for Horizont won't find it, as it should properly be filed under KMZ under the current scheme. This problem is only going to get worse as more cameras are added, especially obsolete and classic ones. (I discovered this problem on my own, as I just added an article for the Paxette, made by Braun; I put the camera in the list, which is incorrect the way things stand now.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 15:39, 1 March 2006 (EST) ::::As you can see from the previous discussion, the current solution is only a compromise, probably not a completely satisfactory one, so feel free to experiment with the main page's layout. Note however that in McKeown's encyclopedic book about classic cameras, the classification by makers is yet more strict than our current one, to the point that they are listing Pentax under "Asahi", and Leica under "Leitz". Some years ago, they were even listing Rollei under "Franke & Heidecke" and Kodak under "Eastman". But it was considered as an invaluable source of information all the same. --Rebollo fr 19:03, 1 March 2006 (EST) Help!!! I don't know where else to post this, so I'm putting it here. (Hey, folks, how about a few instructions and hints about things like that, huh?) I need help with a couple of things: 1. Adding images to an article: no go. I've tried all the following: *image: *image: *image: (without the angle brackets, of course) Each does something different, and interesting, but not what I want it to do, which is to just display the damn picture. Actually, all of these "work", sort of, but I see the "and "" on the left & right sides of the picture, respectively. So how do you add an image? Your instructions are nowhere near enough to do this. I did figure out the Flickr part of it, and uploaded my pictures there. Are there formatting options like on Wikipedia that let you align the image left, center, right, all that kind of stuff? 2. Adding an article: The only way I've found to do this is via the address bar in my browser, by constructing a URL that has the name of the article I want to create and "action=edit" in it. Pretty klugey. I've looked everywhere and can find no button, link or anything else to create an article. (Since on Wikipedia you automatically get a link to create an article when you search for one that doesn't exist, I kinda thought that might be the case here, but no.) So what's the secret to doing this? Do you think you could put some kind of simple control somewhere where a mortal human being might have a chance of stumbling across it? Thanks. --ILike2BeAnonymous 23:23, 27 February 2006 (EST) : To add an article, I type the intended title in the search box, and the first sentence is: "No page with this exact title exists, trying full text search.", and this exact title being a link to create the new page. --Rebollo fr 11:28, 28 February 2006 (EST)